Making It On Broadway - th truth?- Page 5

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/10/04 at 9:22am

My friends, don't be so naive and paranoid and start claiming that there was some secret agenda or conspiracy in the book.

Of course the book looks critically at the works of Claude Michel Schonberg, the composer of Les Mis and Martin Guerre. After all, the book is about the mega-musicals.

Of course the authors focused in on what was most familiar.

Of course the authors talked to those actors who trusted them and were willing to confide in them. That is precisely why the book is so good. It is the insider's story.

Of course there are other stories to tell, but the book is not simply about telling random stories. That is not a book. That is a chat room. So keep on chatting if you wish...

The book had a definite message, not an agenda.

So people - relax.

[ShineOn]

Posted: 11/10/04 at 11:06am

I would just like to comment as my name was mentioned.

It's true, if ANYONE thinks Emily is one of God's gifts to musical theatre, it's certainly me.

HOWEVER, there is NO denying that due to her STATUS that she HIT during Side Show, she has had a DOOR open to many oppportunities she may have not even had the chance to be SEEN for otherwise. Whether we like it or not, once you hit a certain POINT, it's *EASIER* (not EASY) to get further ahead.

Lets be honest here... do you think if Emily was a chorus girl and still had the attendence record she does, she would EVER be hired in this town again? Nope, don't think so. And YES, she's incredibly talented and deserves whats she's gotten, but in the SAME respect, there are plenty of unknowns JUST as talented and have yet to hit that same peak.

So, I agree... for Marissa to say it's going to be just as hard for HER to get that next gig as the next person, that is just ignorant or she's trying unsuccessfully to appear humble. Case in point, it's bullsh*t.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/10/04 at 3:16pm

Sure, a door might open. The question is...how big a door and how long it will stay open.

Re-read the chapter "THE BASE OF THE TONY IS PLASTIC" once again and you just have to wonder...Were all these Tony nominees and winners simply making things up? Or is there some point here worth making...

When you have to dress up like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle 3 months after winning a Tony Award simply to make ends meet, you start to wonder...Is it possible for anyone anymore to have a "career" and support themselves as an actor? It seems harder than ever.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 11/10/04 at 3:32pm

The key is acknowledging that it is YOUR career and that your agent is not the main ingredient. It's YOU. Make things happen. Too often, people "make it" and think that their work is done. A lot of times, getting the second gig is just as hard if not harder because people can only see you as that character you just played. One in a million people get job after job offered to them. That's why they're stars. The rest of us have to *gasp* WORK at it.

Rath - Personally, I knew EXACTLY what I was getting into when I came into this business. But, I've been shocked and am baffled by people who appear confused when they don't get every job they go out for. How could they not know what this business was like? THe answer is, as you have pointed out time and time again, they DO know what they're getting themselves into. BUT, and this is key, everyone thinks THEY will be the exception to the rule. They will be famous and adored and get offered job after job without even having to audition. And some of them are right. Like I said: ONE in a MILLION.

[B.B. Wolf]

Posted: 11/10/04 at 4:32pm

*bump*
Rath - do you agree? Disagree? thoughts?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/10/04 at 4:37pm

I agree with you, B.B.

This is a business, like Hollywood, that is based on what you did last. You either push and fight to work again right after that Tony win or you are going to sit around without anything, and then the more time passes, the quicker you're going to be forgotten. There are too many people competing for two few jobs. If you want to be a part of it, and you've already gotten far enough to win a Tony, then fight to stay in the battle. No one - NO ONE - ever said it was an easy business.

And sometimes one has to realize that perhaps it's time to throw in the towel. The jobs aren't coming along for you anymore and there's a new crop of actors - again, it's all about perspective, reality and paying the bills. Like everyone in the world, you do what you have to do to pay the bills and take care of your family.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 2:54am

My friends, don't be so naive and paranoid and start claiming that there was some secret agenda or conspiracy in the book.

Naive AND paranoid? Those are practically opposites.

I think the view that this book is such a fantastic work of insider's genius is what is naive. It's obviously very flawed. It's enjoyable, yes, but I'll take its "message" with a grain of salt. Yes, it has important things to say about the state of Broadway; but I don't appreciate being manipulated into thinking that, through hand-picked quotation abstracts that are neatly assembled in a very obvious way.

Updated On: 11/11/04 at 02:54 AM

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 9:20am

Blue:

Here is a quick vocab lesson:

Naive:Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
Simple and guileless; artless; Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment.

Paranoid: Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.

These words are hardly "opposites," but on the contrary, very accurately describe your criticism of the book.You challenge the collective wisdom of 154 Broadway performers and are overcome by your apparent distrust of others.

Respect should be given to the performers who opened up their lives and finally said something honest and true about Broadway.

The days of sugar-coating the Great White Way are, hopefully, over...

Now the rest of the world can see what really goes on. Updated On: 11/11/04 at 09:20 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 9:25am

*claps for NYC*

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 2:20pm

These words are hardly "opposites," but on the contrary, very accurately describe your criticism of the book.You challenge the collective wisdom of 154 Broadway performers and are overcome by your apparent distrust of others.

NYC20042: forget the book, I find your tone condescending and presumptuous. Let me stress again that a) I found the book enjoyable and enlightening, and b) the issues I have with the book have nothing to do with the people who were interviewed or their opinions, but by the way the book was constructed. There are gleaming holes in the book which were not addressed: why nothing on racial casting, a huge issue of contention on Broadway? Why does the book have such a narrow focus on some shows (ie. Les Miz, Martin Guerre), while ignoring a big chunk of others (Phantom is given surprisingly little coverage for a show that most defines modern Broadway)? And how does this affect how we read the book? I'm asking critical questions; you're the one being close-minded by offering simple solutions and putting the book on a pedestal.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 2:36pm

Blue:

Come on now. Does everthing really have to be about race?

Moreover, given it is a book of interviews, the authors only addressed what the interviewees where willing to share with them. How can you blame them for not including meaningful stories which were never shared?

That being said, if you want to write a book about Broadway performers bitching about "racial discrimination," I encourage you to do so. That is clearly not what this book was about.

So, the "gleaming holes" are in your thinking about the book, not the book itself.

Additionally, it is impossible and wrong to argue that Phantom has had a more lasting effect on the culture of Broadway than Les Mis. That being said, the book never claims to be a "survey" of Broadway shows. Rather, it is a clear articulation of what has gone wrong on Broadway and how these changes have affected the lives of Broadway performers.




Updated On: 11/11/04 at 02:36 PM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 3:47pm

Come on now. Does everthing really have to be about race?

If you read my original post about the book, you'll find that I was perturbed by how the book picks up issues like race and sexuality, without ever going into them. Racial casting was mentioned in a quotation from Lea Salonga, but it was never followed through by the editors.

If the authors set out to encompass the problems plaguing Broadway, I don't see how they could overlook racial casting. If we take your argument (that the book isn't about race), then the book isn't about "sexual harassment" either, but it happens, and it's covered in the book. I don't see why they would cover sexual harassment and not racial discrimination. Again, it shows a certain subjectiveness to the book, rather than objective journalism.

Yet I acknowledge the fact that this book is a subjective work - it is, after all, completely comprised of opinions and anecdotes. As such, however, I don't think we should see it as a work of journalism - especially since Langel herself is both an interviewer and an interviewee, which doesn't reflect well on the integrity of the book.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:11pm

Blue:

Gosh, do you need help with your vocab! Here is another word for you to learn:

Journalism:

(1)The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
(2)Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.

Come on, get with the program. Making it on Broadway is a book, not a newspaper or magazine, which collects stories from Broadway actors with the intention of capturing the essense of what it's like to be a Broadway performer in this new era of theater.

Further, since Ms. Langel is a Broadway performer, her stories are just as valid as anyone elses. I assume that is why they were included. To be sure, someone's integrity should be questioned, but not Ms. Langel's.

Lastly, if performers didn't feel comfortable talking about race, how could the authors have included a section on it? Would you have prefered the authors to torture it out of people like Gerry McIntyre and Angela Lockett who had other things on their minds? Think man, think - and don't be so angry all the time.


Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:11 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:25pm

You know, you can do a book that reveals the dark side of business- any business- without being as much of a downer as Making it on Broadway. Think of Ball Four, the first "clubhouse confessional." The book caused a tremendous amount of controversey when it came out- the baseball commissioner himself spoke against it.

Jim Bouton revealed the "dark side" of professional baseball- the wide use of amphetamines, Mickey Mantle and the rest of those classic Yankees' bad behavior, the constant fear a pitcher lives with when it comes to the health of his throwing arm, and the grind of being a marginal reliever, trying to make it as a knuckleballer when you can't throw hard anymore. But the book, overall, is not depressing, and doesn't seem like it has an agenda or, as NYC20042 would prefer to say, a "message." It is, in fact, considered a literary classic. I realize that the format of Making it on Broadway makes it impossible for it move as smoothly as a book written from one point of view, but regarding overall tone and style, it could take a few lessons from Ball Four.

There's a difference between revealing the dark side of things, and making a whole book about the dark side of things. Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:25 PM

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:29pm

Time will tell, but I promise you this...

Making it on Broadway will become more of a "literary classic" than Ball Four could ever dream of being.

Go Yankees.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:31pm

Heck, in some ways I even liked Everything Was Possible more than Making it on Broadway. It was more revelatory even if it glossed over some no doubt nasty things.

And have you read Ball Four? I really recommend it- it's one of the funniest things I've ever read. Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:31 PM

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:35pm

To me, most of what Makin' it on Broadway does is expose how real the business is. That it's not all fun and games. It's not something that has to be argued for or against, but you can't deny that SOME of those actors who participated seemed like they would complain if they shat gold. If more of the anecdotes were like Doug Storm's, then the book would be a lot more credible (to me), because he balanced the positive with the negative very well and intrigued me a lot more than those who couldn't get over that they had a steady job for a few years and started getting bored.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:35pm

I have read both Bouton publications, Ball Four and Foul Ball, and I enjoyed Everything Was Possible as well.

That being said, Making It on Broadway is a much more important work, and is groundbreaking.

Go Yankees. Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:35 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:37pm

Honestly, I don't remember learning anything new from Making it on Broadway, except for specific stories. Which are always nice, but still- I wouldn't call that groundbreaking. Let's have a little perspective here.

ETA- My parents always made it quite plain that any kind of artistic profession is going to be unstable and unlikely to bring significant monetary compensation. And I think I first expressed my desire to be an artist at age 4. So maybe I'm in an unusual position. Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:37 PM

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:39pm

Perhaps you should read it a second time.

[GirlfriendFromCanada]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:40pm

Exactly, it's hardly groundbreaking. Anyone who has ever even known an actor casually would not be surprised by a lot of those stories. The specific stories are a lot of fun, but that's mostly all they are. Specific stories based on general, well-known truths. Some of which make me proud of the actors I know that just trudge on silently and keep working to get where they are going.

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:48pm

So, now you are trying to argue that everyone knows that:

(1) actors sexually harass each other back stage,
(2) that Tony winners go back to selling underwear at the GAP days after winning their award,
(3) that actors rarely "act" on stage in long running shows,
(4) that there is peer pressure not to act,
(5) that theaters are covered with rat droppings,
(6) that actors in long running shows rarely if ever meet the director,
(7) that some actors take out their penis on stage during a live show to make other actors laugh, and
( 8 ) that no matter how many credits you get, you are always at square one, and it rarely if ever gets easier...

etc., etc., etc.

I completely disagree. There has never been any other book which has addressed these issues. Until now. Hence, it is groundbreaking.
Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:48 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:52pm

I didn't say well-known- I said known to me. Though considering that I have no connections whatsoever to anyone involved in any kind of performance art, that might be saying something.

I knew about actors goofing off during long runs. Sexual harrassment happens everywhere. (That's not to diminish how bad it is- it's just true.) I knew acting doesn't pay much except in rare cases, and salaries don't necessarily go up with awards. Of course there's pressure not to act. And I knew about the filthiness of some theaters, too, but that's probably because I read too much. :)

[NYC20042]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 4:55pm

If you knew about all of this, why didn't you write a book and try to do something about it?

Don't you see there are problems here, and the actors in this book are brave enough to address them???

[Plum]

Posted: 11/11/04 at 5:02pm

I read about all those things. And you know what? Acting doesn't strike me as the place where my reformative energies would be best used. People don't go into acting because they're forced to- they do it because they love it, or at the very least love performing.

If you want to help people in a certain profession, help people in sweatshops, who have to take those jobs because there's no other opportunities where they live. Help people being exploited from the very start.

My pet cause has been Habitat for Humanity- building low-cost housing for people. Somehow, giving people shelter has been more satisfactory to me than tut-tutting about directors not visiting long-running productions would be. Go figure.